stating that no Simmons instruction was required because "[t]he aggravating circumstance of appellant's prior record for violent felonies addressed only appellant's past conduct, not his future dangerousness"
How later courts described this case
- stating that no Simmons instruction was required because "[t]he aggravating circumstance of appellant's prior record for violent felonies addressed only appellant's past conduct, not his future dangerousness"
- holding that the aggravating circumstance of a significant history of prior violent felony convictions involves only the defendant's past conduct, not his future dangerousness.
- holding that evidence regarding a defendant's past violent convictions or conduct does not implicate the issue of his or her future dangerousness
- reflecting a similar instruction centered on the requirement that "the defendant committed a killing while in the perpetration of a felony"
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
*295 NIGRO, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result for the reasons set forth in my concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Clark, - Pa. -, 710 A.2d 31 (Pa. 1998), asserting that a jury charge pursuant to Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U.S. 154 , 114 S.Ct. 2187 , 129 L.Ed.2d 133 (1994), should be mandated regardless of whether counsel raises the issue of a defendant’s potential future dangerousness during the penalty phase.